[at-l] New Hydrogen Process (OT)

[jbullar1 at twcny.rr.com (Jim Bullard)]

As much as I hate to agree with Bryan, no energy source (or almost any 
manufacturing for that matter) is without pollutants, whether particulate, 
noise, visual or whatever. I love the irony of advocates' of electric cars 
claims that they are totally non-polluting. Yeah, right. They don't pollute 
in the city where they are used to run around town but what about out where 
the electricity is generated? It just transfers the pollution from the city 
to the country. Even hydro and wind power aren't without environmental cost 
and solar just isn't there yet (if it ever will be).

To get back to the article I posted, the pebble bed technology seems (to my 
non-engineer reasoning) to present a safer alternative than the current 
fuel rod plants. Storage of spent balls on-site is preferable to shipping 
dangerous materials across country. A technology that is not prone to 
catastrophic meltdown is preferable to one that is. It's not the perfect 
no-cost-to-the-environment solution we'd all like to find but it is better 
than building more Three Mile Islands.

Ideally we would reduce our consumption and conserve while we explore 
alternatives but that doesn't seem to sell very well in 'I want it all and 
I want it now' America. Unfortunately we have to deal with reality.

At 06:32 PM 11/29/2004 -0500, J Bryan Kramer wrote:
>This still doesn't address the other major problem with H2, the low storage
>density. Hydrogen is just hard to store in reasonable quantities.
>
>As for nuke power, the usual irrationality still rules, how can you think
>it's better to dump megatons of pollutants into the air rather than
>producing a easily storable small quantity of solid waste.
>
>Look at this MIT article:
>
>http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/12/wald1204.asp?p=1
>
>Only the math deprived think terrestrial solar has any future.
>
>BK
>to
>-------Original Message-----
>--*
>--*
>--*
>--            The article strikes me as a theoretical
>--economics, business-sided
>--promotion of nuclear power. It gives one line to the waste
>--disposal problem -
>--"and the balls can then be stored in a lead-lined container
>--on the premises."
>--Sort of like "Thalidomide, available in easily-swallowed
>--capsules." Nowhere
>--does the article mention the huge amounts of waste that will
>--accumulate from
>--this new surge in nuclear power development. It's a sprawl brochure.
>--
>--      Ironic that the American engineer who originally
>--conceived this type of
>--nuclear reactor was ignored and then went on to support solar
>--power - which
>--is now being ignored as well.
>--
>--          Nothing in there at all about the environmental
>--impact of using
>--industry to convert China. I often wonder if some forces see
>--communization of the
>--masses on the public level as OK as long as a controlling
>--aloof business
>--class enjoys a separate free system. An ideal China is moving
>--towards from one
>--side and the west the other. Sounds like a great subject for
>--a movie...
>--
>--
>--
>--*
>--
>--
>--
>--
>--
>--
>--
>--
>--_______________________________________________
>--at-l mailing list
>--at-l@backcountry.net http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l
>--
>
>_______________________________________________
>at-l mailing list
>at-l@backcountry.net
>http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/at-l