by ushoys » Sun 12 Aug 2007, 15:31:01
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ushoys', 'W')hy does it have to be cheap or abundant? "Cheap" and "abundant" are of course a relative terms and the times of cheap, abundant energy by yesterday's standards are gone forever. Again, that doesn't mean it is not worthwhile to convert one form of energy into another. It will just be at an ever-increasing expense.
And no net gain in energy, but a net loss.
The time when we could have a solar/hydrogen infrastructure is decades away at best.
The last thing we need now is a new energy
consumer.
Yes a net loss. Any practical option is going to be net loss to some degree.
Solar/H2 infrastructure will take a long time if it comes at all and I agree we need to reduce the number of (new and old) energy consumers by having fewer children.
None of this invalides the pursuit of Hydrogen.