Cal Thomas has it right

Thu Aug 17 23:25:02 MDT 2006

MCSpearing wrote:
> Actually, Carl, the wild theory is that hydrogen can be split from water 
> (H2O), and the theory isn't wild, only expensive.  It's done all the 
> time, but cost-effective means must be developed. I am immutably 
> convinced that this can, and evetually WILL, be done.  The beauty is 
> that when hydrogen burns, it combines with oxygen (O2) and becomes water 
> again.  That makes hydrogen a recyclable fuel!  Hell, even whining 
> apocalyptic tree-huggers ought to go for that. 

I can think of one reason why they won't.  On an industrial scale, a lot 
of electricity would be required to do the job.  A coal, oil or gas 
fired plant could be used.  However the tree huggers would protest that 
on the ground of air pollution.

Hydroelectric plants could be used.  This would require building a lot 
of dams.  The tree huggers would complain about the dams behing harmful 
to the fish.  How can a dam be bad for fish when it creates a helluva 
lot more habitat for the fish?

Geothermal energy could be used, but if someone wanted to build a power 
plant at Yellowstone, the tree huggers would really raise hell then.

Wind power isn't an option.  It's not reliable.  You would be dependent 
on the wind, which doesn't blow all the time.  If you built a wind farm 
anyway, the tree huggers would complain because each one of those 
windmills would become a bird o matic slicing and dicing the little birdies.

Solar power - rainy days.

This leaves one option to generate electricity on an industrial scale. 
You can put a plant on near the coast, in the middle of a desert or 
anywhere else you want to.  It generates zero air pollution.  Enough 
fuel to keep it going for a year could fit under your dining room table. 
  Enough fuel to operate it for 40 or 50 years would fit inside your 
house.  The problem here is that you and I and even the people in 
McKeesport know how the libs would react if someone tried to build a 
nuclear plant.

This reminds me.  The libs are always using the that's how they do it in 
europe, we should do it that way here argument.  In one case I agree. 
The frogs make over 70% of their electricity from nuclear power.  They 
make so much that they export it to other countries.  They even have 
cables laid on the bottom of the English channel so they can sell power 
to the British.  The frogs haven't had any serious accidents at thier 
nuclear power plants.  Also their nuclear plants are all breeder 
reactors.  A breeder reactor is one that's designed to turn as much U238 
as possible into plutonium.  U235 is the isotope of uranium that 
provides the energy in a fission reaction.  Fresh fuel rods are 
approximately 3% U235.  When fuel in a breeder reactor is used up, it's 
taken out and processed to remove the by products that don't contribute 
to a fission reaction.  This leaves U235, U238 and plutonium that can be 
made into fresh fuel rods.

> Hydrogen, despite the awful press the Hindenburg gave it, is far more 
> forgiving a fuel than is gasoline.  In a crash, hydrogen, if the tank 
> ruptures, rises away from the car because hydrogen is lighter than air.  
> Gasoline, on the other hand, pools, soaks into clothing and sticks to 
> everything.  Another Way of looking at it is to imagine Hindenburg 
> filled with high-test ethyl when it exploded. There'd be no survivors.  
> Shoot, it might still be burning!

The fire that we all have seen in the film of the Hindenburg crash was 
the diesel that was used to power the engines.

> In a hydrogen-driven planet, the world no longer needs filthy towel-head 
> oil, or them.  This is a goal worth fighting for.

Amen brother Spearing.


"I have this theory that people get promoted to management because 
they're crap at any other job."
- Roger Twiggy Day

"It's 3 in the morning.  Do you know where your Kennedys are?"
- Sean Hannity

More information about the Rushtalk mailing list