Re: Time's Warning


"Jax" <j.a.f@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:LagWf.37420$bn3.6607@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"Davoud" <star@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:280320061122147795%star@xxxxxxxxxx

I'm willing to give up the burning of fossil fuel. Global warming. War
in the Middle East. The 9- *trillion* dollar defecit. Western
involvement in Arab affairs. (Let OPEC pound sand. Literally.)


Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Agreed there are many good reasons to switch from fossil fuel, even
without considering global warming. What are your thoughts on achieving
this goal? If an Apollo like program is the plan, what would you recommend
in the interim for significant CO2 reduction?

Well - seeing as how the Solar System is comprised mainly of hydrogen, and
the largest energy production we know of (nearby) is based on hydrogen, it
would seem sensible to go with a hydrogen based economy, no ? Proven energy
generation from mass, plus lots of available fuel seem to be a couple of
fairly compelling reasons..

How about first of all harnessing the freely available solar, wind and tidal
energy on a planetary scale to crack water into its component parts and
compress the hydrogen for storage and transport ( man made solar/tidal/wind
power generating islands in the oceans 100 miles on a side for example).
Then we can recombine the hydrogen and oxygen locally through fuel cell
technology to provide electrical power as needed.

We can of course also use the renewable energy sources directly, but there
is the need for a storage and transport mechanism for energy that the use of
hydrogen would seem to work well for.

And then there's fusion power. Ah - how about some big ass tokamaks....???

*** - this is easy. It just needs lots of cash and global political
willpower......althoug probably not as much cash as waging war for the next
twenty years.

Kind of tough when the current ruling elite is heavily invested in the oil
business and just loves the current situation ????


.

Quantcast