![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
From Twitter 01-13-2010
Jan. 14th, 2010 02:03 amTweets copied by twittinesis.com
Jan. 14th, 2010
So, I've been thinking about alternative energy- specifically wind and solar power.
Wind and solar are the least polluting (not zero, but close), most environmentally friendly energy sources we currently know of. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with both: (1) they're not a constant or controllable source of power; and (2) the best locations for them tend to be way the hell away from where the power is needed, which means extremely expensive electrical transmission lines, with significant power loss to resistance. (That is, the longer the power line, the less juice actually makes it to the end of it.)
And then I thought: hydrogen!
Hydrogen is not a power source- it's a power storage system. You split up natural gas or (more environmentally friendly) water using electrolysis to get hydrogen, which you then either burn or run through a fuel cell to generate power where it's needed. It's not as energy-efficient as the extremely dense hydrocarbons we burn now, but it's not all that far from it.
Hydrogen doesn't go bad. We can store it in tanks pretty much indefinitely- or, at least, for the life of the tank. We have technology- currently in use in California- that allows hydrogen-fueled cars to be tanked safely and quickly. We can truck it anyplace... and I'm not certain, but wouldn't be surprised if you could pipeline the stuff across the country. Hell, we have natural gas pipelines, and methane and propane are even more explosive than raw hydrogen- more stored energy.
So instead of using solar and wind to power homes... let's use it to power our cars.
Forget ethanol, dump gasoline: hydrogen cars for the future. New literal "gas" stations with windmills on the signs and solar panels on the roof, with the cost of the hydrogen more or less tied to the water bill (plus whatever energy the mills/panels can't deliver). Big combination windfarms and desalinization plants on the Texas gulf coast (say, one at High Island, one around Palacios, and one at King Ranch between Corpus Christi and Brownsville) and near Yuma (negotiate right-of-way with Mexico to pipeline in salt water from the Gulf of California).
Now, there is one significant drawback with this plan: the best places for wind and solar power are also very, very DRY places. Places so dry that we're currently overburdening the water reserves just for the current needs of the people who live in those places. (I'm looking at YOU, Las Vegas and Phoenix.) For those places my clever little idea won't work so well.
But for other places, where there's either plenty of water or a nearby ocean for desalinzation...
... it'd be worth doing, if only someone in an energy company paid attention to laymen like me.
Wind and solar are the least polluting (not zero, but close), most environmentally friendly energy sources we currently know of. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with both: (1) they're not a constant or controllable source of power; and (2) the best locations for them tend to be way the hell away from where the power is needed, which means extremely expensive electrical transmission lines, with significant power loss to resistance. (That is, the longer the power line, the less juice actually makes it to the end of it.)
And then I thought: hydrogen!
Hydrogen is not a power source- it's a power storage system. You split up natural gas or (more environmentally friendly) water using electrolysis to get hydrogen, which you then either burn or run through a fuel cell to generate power where it's needed. It's not as energy-efficient as the extremely dense hydrocarbons we burn now, but it's not all that far from it.
Hydrogen doesn't go bad. We can store it in tanks pretty much indefinitely- or, at least, for the life of the tank. We have technology- currently in use in California- that allows hydrogen-fueled cars to be tanked safely and quickly. We can truck it anyplace... and I'm not certain, but wouldn't be surprised if you could pipeline the stuff across the country. Hell, we have natural gas pipelines, and methane and propane are even more explosive than raw hydrogen- more stored energy.
So instead of using solar and wind to power homes... let's use it to power our cars.
Forget ethanol, dump gasoline: hydrogen cars for the future. New literal "gas" stations with windmills on the signs and solar panels on the roof, with the cost of the hydrogen more or less tied to the water bill (plus whatever energy the mills/panels can't deliver). Big combination windfarms and desalinization plants on the Texas gulf coast (say, one at High Island, one around Palacios, and one at King Ranch between Corpus Christi and Brownsville) and near Yuma (negotiate right-of-way with Mexico to pipeline in salt water from the Gulf of California).
Now, there is one significant drawback with this plan: the best places for wind and solar power are also very, very DRY places. Places so dry that we're currently overburdening the water reserves just for the current needs of the people who live in those places. (I'm looking at YOU, Las Vegas and Phoenix.) For those places my clever little idea won't work so well.
But for other places, where there's either plenty of water or a nearby ocean for desalinzation...
... it'd be worth doing, if only someone in an energy company paid attention to laymen like me.
So, I've been thinking about alternative energy- specifically wind and solar power.
Wind and solar are the least polluting (not zero, but close), most environmentally friendly energy sources we currently know of. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with both: (1) they're not a constant or controllable source of power; and (2) the best locations for them tend to be way the hell away from where the power is needed, which means extremely expensive electrical transmission lines, with significant power loss to resistance. (That is, the longer the power line, the less juice actually makes it to the end of it.)
And then I thought: hydrogen!
Hydrogen is not a power source- it's a power storage system. You split up natural gas or (more environmentally friendly) water using electrolysis to get hydrogen, which you then either burn or run through a fuel cell to generate power where it's needed. It's not as energy-efficient as the extremely dense hydrocarbons we burn now, but it's not all that far from it.
Hydrogen doesn't go bad. We can store it in tanks pretty much indefinitely- or, at least, for the life of the tank. We have technology- currently in use in California- that allows hydrogen-fueled cars to be tanked safely and quickly. We can truck it anyplace... and I'm not certain, but wouldn't be surprised if you could pipeline the stuff across the country. Hell, we have natural gas pipelines, and methane and propane are even more explosive than raw hydrogen- more stored energy.
So instead of using solar and wind to power homes... let's use it to power our cars.
Forget ethanol, dump gasoline: hydrogen cars for the future. New literal "gas" stations with windmills on the signs and solar panels on the roof, with the cost of the hydrogen more or less tied to the water bill (plus whatever energy the mills/panels can't deliver). Big combination windfarms and desalinization plants on the Texas gulf coast (say, one at High Island, one around Palacios, and one at King Ranch between Corpus Christi and Brownsville) and near Yuma (negotiate right-of-way with Mexico to pipeline in salt water from the Gulf of California).
Now, there is one significant drawback with this plan: the best places for wind and solar power are also very, very DRY places. Places so dry that we're currently overburdening the water reserves just for the current needs of the people who live in those places. (I'm looking at YOU, Las Vegas and Phoenix.) For those places my clever little idea won't work so well.
But for other places, where there's either plenty of water or a nearby ocean for desalinzation...
... it'd be worth doing, if only someone in an energy company paid attention to laymen like me.
Wind and solar are the least polluting (not zero, but close), most environmentally friendly energy sources we currently know of. Unfortunately, there are two major problems with both: (1) they're not a constant or controllable source of power; and (2) the best locations for them tend to be way the hell away from where the power is needed, which means extremely expensive electrical transmission lines, with significant power loss to resistance. (That is, the longer the power line, the less juice actually makes it to the end of it.)
And then I thought: hydrogen!
Hydrogen is not a power source- it's a power storage system. You split up natural gas or (more environmentally friendly) water using electrolysis to get hydrogen, which you then either burn or run through a fuel cell to generate power where it's needed. It's not as energy-efficient as the extremely dense hydrocarbons we burn now, but it's not all that far from it.
Hydrogen doesn't go bad. We can store it in tanks pretty much indefinitely- or, at least, for the life of the tank. We have technology- currently in use in California- that allows hydrogen-fueled cars to be tanked safely and quickly. We can truck it anyplace... and I'm not certain, but wouldn't be surprised if you could pipeline the stuff across the country. Hell, we have natural gas pipelines, and methane and propane are even more explosive than raw hydrogen- more stored energy.
So instead of using solar and wind to power homes... let's use it to power our cars.
Forget ethanol, dump gasoline: hydrogen cars for the future. New literal "gas" stations with windmills on the signs and solar panels on the roof, with the cost of the hydrogen more or less tied to the water bill (plus whatever energy the mills/panels can't deliver). Big combination windfarms and desalinization plants on the Texas gulf coast (say, one at High Island, one around Palacios, and one at King Ranch between Corpus Christi and Brownsville) and near Yuma (negotiate right-of-way with Mexico to pipeline in salt water from the Gulf of California).
Now, there is one significant drawback with this plan: the best places for wind and solar power are also very, very DRY places. Places so dry that we're currently overburdening the water reserves just for the current needs of the people who live in those places. (I'm looking at YOU, Las Vegas and Phoenix.) For those places my clever little idea won't work so well.
But for other places, where there's either plenty of water or a nearby ocean for desalinzation...
... it'd be worth doing, if only someone in an energy company paid attention to laymen like me.
An interesting piece, worth reading, that claims that Pat Buchanan's 1970 memo to his then boss Richard Nixon started the dirty tricks and imperial presidency into action.
I'd take it with a few grains of salt; as was seen during his time as a Senator, and as Eisenhower's VP, Nixon had absolutely no qualms about bare-knuckles fighting and ignoring the law when it suited him to do so.
But it bears remembering that three of the most influential voices in the Republican Party in the last thirty years- Rumsfeld, Cheney and of course Buchanan- got their start with Nixon.
And all three agreed with the concept of permanent war against anyone and everyone who wasn't them- by any means necessary.
I'd take it with a few grains of salt; as was seen during his time as a Senator, and as Eisenhower's VP, Nixon had absolutely no qualms about bare-knuckles fighting and ignoring the law when it suited him to do so.
But it bears remembering that three of the most influential voices in the Republican Party in the last thirty years- Rumsfeld, Cheney and of course Buchanan- got their start with Nixon.
And all three agreed with the concept of permanent war against anyone and everyone who wasn't them- by any means necessary.
An interesting piece, worth reading, that claims that Pat Buchanan's 1970 memo to his then boss Richard Nixon started the dirty tricks and imperial presidency into action.
I'd take it with a few grains of salt; as was seen during his time as a Senator, and as Eisenhower's VP, Nixon had absolutely no qualms about bare-knuckles fighting and ignoring the law when it suited him to do so.
But it bears remembering that three of the most influential voices in the Republican Party in the last thirty years- Rumsfeld, Cheney and of course Buchanan- got their start with Nixon.
And all three agreed with the concept of permanent war against anyone and everyone who wasn't them- by any means necessary.
I'd take it with a few grains of salt; as was seen during his time as a Senator, and as Eisenhower's VP, Nixon had absolutely no qualms about bare-knuckles fighting and ignoring the law when it suited him to do so.
But it bears remembering that three of the most influential voices in the Republican Party in the last thirty years- Rumsfeld, Cheney and of course Buchanan- got their start with Nixon.
And all three agreed with the concept of permanent war against anyone and everyone who wasn't them- by any means necessary.