Bob43
17-09-07, 03:11 PM
Global Warning and Energy - Proposal: Hydrogen motors and Nuclear Energy
The highly respected and experienced climatologist (originally astronomer and) physicist James Hansen, at present professor in the Earth and Environmental Sciences department at Columbia University and head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City has been warning us for nearly 40 years:
"We have now reached a point where if we don't get on a different course very soon, the planet is in big trouble," he tells Carrie Gracie in The Interview on the BBC World Service.
In 20-30 years, the melting of the ice-caps alone due to global warming will probably result in an earth-warming of about 3°C; enough to raise the waters of the Earth by 20-30metres and cause disaster for millions of people.
"Are you sure this is due to man-made pollution?" - ask the sceptics, the blind. I think that this has now been proven without doubt.
This scientist is not a sandle-shod, raw carrot-eating green fanatic, but a highly-respected scientist of many years standing.
He is not the only respected profit of doom, and many are the voices now slowly, much too slowly, convincing us, against the huge attacks from the business fraternity with financial interests in short-term profits. These powerful multinationals apparently cannot see ahead for more than 10 years.
Many alternative methods of so-called "renewable" energies have been proposed, to mention only Soya, ethanol from sugar etc which involves the cutting down of millions of acres of forest for their production! Think of the monocultures which will result. Renewable? The green "lungs" of the Earth will suffer again, to our detriment. The problem remains.
Hydrogen is the product of the future - should we have a future at this slow rate! Hydrogen - truly renewable with zero CO2 emissions: Take water, split it, combine it again in motors, the emission is again water. Beautiful. Zero pollution. The technology is already here, a few minor problems have yet still to be solved (dangers of explosion, necessitating very strong and heavy containers etc).
I have read of 4 points which are claimed to speak against hydrogen
1. Expensive. Perhaps initially, but as soon as global use catches up, this will be reduced
2. Infra-structure problems: the world-wide availability of gas stations must be augmented. So what? We know the change is going to cost money, much money; There is no other way.
3. Difficulty of storing hydrogen: strong tanks. But with the combined brain power of positive-thinking scientists end engineers, this should eventually pose no problem.
4. Expensive cost of hydrogen. We will just have to be happy with efficient engines, and low power automobiles; Gas guzzlers are out, and unless truly needed (3.5 litre jeeps for going to the supermarket, surely not), should be highly taxed or even forbidden.
Why are the powers that be, for example the international oil companies, not interested? They can also make fortunes if they start now. The financial input necessary for the development is peanuts to them.
I propose:
Cars running on liquid hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water as well as electricity for domestic and industrial processes fed by the same sources.
The sources for this product, preferably combined: nuclear, hydraulic, solar, geothermal - perhaps even wind and tidal sources, to produce the electricity needed.
The irradiation of our planet by the Sun is so immense, why are we incapable of using it world-wide on a large scale as a prime source of energy, and still delegate it to a few people with a couple of solar panels on their roofs?
Nuclear energy, you say. Terrible, the dismantling pollution etc. Yes, this is a problem in 20-30 years, but can be dealt with if taken seriously. The problems of CO2 pollution are with us NOW!
It may be a dream, but not a pipe-dream! It is perfectly feasible, when the powers that be - not the elected politicians who are totally powerless in the face of pressure by the multinationals who can only think in terms of short-term profits - start to think positively.
Bob Schedler
The highly respected and experienced climatologist (originally astronomer and) physicist James Hansen, at present professor in the Earth and Environmental Sciences department at Columbia University and head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City has been warning us for nearly 40 years:
"We have now reached a point where if we don't get on a different course very soon, the planet is in big trouble," he tells Carrie Gracie in The Interview on the BBC World Service.
In 20-30 years, the melting of the ice-caps alone due to global warming will probably result in an earth-warming of about 3°C; enough to raise the waters of the Earth by 20-30metres and cause disaster for millions of people.
"Are you sure this is due to man-made pollution?" - ask the sceptics, the blind. I think that this has now been proven without doubt.
This scientist is not a sandle-shod, raw carrot-eating green fanatic, but a highly-respected scientist of many years standing.
He is not the only respected profit of doom, and many are the voices now slowly, much too slowly, convincing us, against the huge attacks from the business fraternity with financial interests in short-term profits. These powerful multinationals apparently cannot see ahead for more than 10 years.
Many alternative methods of so-called "renewable" energies have been proposed, to mention only Soya, ethanol from sugar etc which involves the cutting down of millions of acres of forest for their production! Think of the monocultures which will result. Renewable? The green "lungs" of the Earth will suffer again, to our detriment. The problem remains.
Hydrogen is the product of the future - should we have a future at this slow rate! Hydrogen - truly renewable with zero CO2 emissions: Take water, split it, combine it again in motors, the emission is again water. Beautiful. Zero pollution. The technology is already here, a few minor problems have yet still to be solved (dangers of explosion, necessitating very strong and heavy containers etc).
I have read of 4 points which are claimed to speak against hydrogen
1. Expensive. Perhaps initially, but as soon as global use catches up, this will be reduced
2. Infra-structure problems: the world-wide availability of gas stations must be augmented. So what? We know the change is going to cost money, much money; There is no other way.
3. Difficulty of storing hydrogen: strong tanks. But with the combined brain power of positive-thinking scientists end engineers, this should eventually pose no problem.
4. Expensive cost of hydrogen. We will just have to be happy with efficient engines, and low power automobiles; Gas guzzlers are out, and unless truly needed (3.5 litre jeeps for going to the supermarket, surely not), should be highly taxed or even forbidden.
Why are the powers that be, for example the international oil companies, not interested? They can also make fortunes if they start now. The financial input necessary for the development is peanuts to them.
I propose:
Cars running on liquid hydrogen produced by the electrolysis of water as well as electricity for domestic and industrial processes fed by the same sources.
The sources for this product, preferably combined: nuclear, hydraulic, solar, geothermal - perhaps even wind and tidal sources, to produce the electricity needed.
The irradiation of our planet by the Sun is so immense, why are we incapable of using it world-wide on a large scale as a prime source of energy, and still delegate it to a few people with a couple of solar panels on their roofs?
Nuclear energy, you say. Terrible, the dismantling pollution etc. Yes, this is a problem in 20-30 years, but can be dealt with if taken seriously. The problems of CO2 pollution are with us NOW!
It may be a dream, but not a pipe-dream! It is perfectly feasible, when the powers that be - not the elected politicians who are totally powerless in the face of pressure by the multinationals who can only think in terms of short-term profits - start to think positively.
Bob Schedler