that pumping model has been looked at for a long time. I remember in the early 70’s the talk about using Sunfish pond up above the Delaware Water Gap in NJ for just such a scheme.

When they looked in detail it was an environmental disaster and not economically viable. The economics might have changed but the environmental impact won’t have.

The problem with all alternative fuels is the one you mention, they are vastly more expensive in an energy sense to produce than what you get out. As soon as you get that number to a positive we’ll have perpetual motion and no problems again.

Till then we have to look at the closer to 0 options that can produce energy on a large scale and the only one that is viable today in terms of energy produced and ability to harness it is nuclear. That’s why I say that anyone that doesn’t start an energy discussion with nuclear is not serious.

Once we have virtually unlimited, clean electric energy then we’ll be able to move onto any other alternatives that show real promise.

What I would like to see are dust to dust comparisons for toxicity, cost and reliability for the life time of the new style reactors with things like largescale solar farms that produce equivalent amounts of energy.

Things like wind and wave power are too trivial in amount to bother with.

(typos forgiven)

Electrolysis takes more energy to liberate the H2 form H2O than is recoverd by recombining it to make H2O.

My hope is that we can break the water atom apart using cheap energy, and recombine it to sell expensive energy: i.e perhaps cheap nuclear, or wave energy, or cheap solar in desrets, or… something that research is inventing that we haven’t heard of yet.

Then, you sell the H2 at H2 stations on the road at a profit, or use it to generate electricity and sell it at higher rates than you paid to get the H2, or use it to power your home with fuel cells, etc, etc.

The economic model for this is pump-storage, where utilities pump huge quantities of water out of a lake at night to a reservoir at higher elevation, then drain that same water back down through hydroturbines during the day to generate electricity. They pump it at night at a cheap rate, and sell it during the day at a higher rate, making the whole process economically viable, even though they generate less power during the day than it takes to pump it during the night.

As to the government effectiveness, I agree it is pretty bad, but we did get the superhighway system out of it, went to the moon, built electrical grids, etc. Sometimes, the projects are just too big for private industry to be able to do it all without big brother assistance, I am afraid. Switching to a hydrogen economy just might be one of those things. What incentive does Chevron have to obsolete oil and replace it with H2?

First let me say that I didn’t notice my typo till I read it in your reply. Of course that “your” is “you’re’.

Second, Gov’t might have a role to play, but, until they get the hell out of the way on nuclear energy I won’t believe that they mean it.

There are two ways to recover hydrogen, to your point. As I understand it the main way is via electrolysis of water.

This requires a lot of electricity that we don’t really have. How to get more electricity, safely and cleanly? Nuclear is the way to go. Until I see a major push in this area I will be a cynic and assume that all the rest is just a scam to get someone rich and pass more control of the economy to the gov’t. (See ethanol)

“Unless your talking about mega-science that has no short term payoff and a REALLLY high entrance cost, government involvement in projects hinders way more than helps.

Very good point. I guess my real vision is switching to a Hydrogen economy, which I think could have really high entrance costs; and here a central source of funding, and perhaps coordination, might be needed.

Three areas of development:

1. Creating the Hydrogen. Could be from water or hydrocarbons. Needs lots of research dollars. Why not have universities in on the hunt?

2. Transportation of the Hydrogen. Hydrogen embrittlement of metals is a big hurdle. Governments have created the energy grid. Perhaps some kind of Hydrogen grid would be needed, something other than Hydrogen “tanker” trucks all over the place.

3. Converting Hydrogen to energy. Fuel cells lead the pack at the moment. More research would certainly help.

I agree that private industry is fabulous, and I also think there are times and places where a nation-wide, highly funded effort is appropriate. I see this as part of the war against the jihadis.

You did not specifically mention the gov’t, but whenever someone uses “we” in that sense the implication is that there oughta be a law.

If you don’t want to live a suburban life style, that’s fine. But it is unrealistic to expect that the type of changes you are touting are even possible given the fact that the entire infrastructure of the country would have to change.

This is right up there with the “we should get the toops out of Iraq tomorrow!” cry. Nothing to see or hear but demogoguery.

I did not call for government intervention anywhere in my original posting, rather I was suggesting we change our collective outlook on our lifestyle. Superbig houses on lots of land and superbig cars driving large distances has made us overly dependent on middle-east nutterdoms, and all the attendant consequences. We went to Kuwait to save the oil, which led to US troops in Saudi Arabia, which led to 9-11. They use our petro dollars to fund terrorism against us. Our politics with them is compromised. They have us by the balls.

Living more responsibly is not bowing to tyranny. Itís looking out for our own long term best interest, and yeah, that’s the greater good. Sorry you canít see that.

That sounds like a typical Hillary Clinton “I know what’s best for you.” solution.

We need to restrict the individuals ability to live the type of life they want for the greater good. That about it?

If every two bit tyrant wanna be moved into a high rise as their only residence and out of their 30,000 sq ft palaces the rest of us wouldn’t have to worry.

They are my dollars and I’ll spend them how I see fit. Whether it’s to keep warm or cool via energy use; or moving into some high rise where I can’t have my work shop or my archery hobbies, that’s up to me.

Not necessarily. My wife and I bought our first home in 1986. It was built in 1968 and had a bit less than 1800 square feet of living area. Our current home was built 8 years ago. It’s about twice the size of that earlier home but our utility bills are considerably less, especially when adjusted for inflation. Most newer homes are a lot more energy efficient than old homes. It isn’t accurate to simply compare the sizes of two homes to determine which uses more energy.

The suburban lifestyle is spread out, requiring the need of a car to go just about everywhere. We need to build up more and out less-perhaps build houses with three floors instead of one large single floor.

While having everyone live in high density apartment buildings would be more energy efficient, a lot of us don’t want to live that way. Some people love apartment buildings. More power (figuratively) to them.

Our old home was a split level while our new one is a ranch with a full basement. Again, the number of floors doesn’t necessarily dictate energy consumption although it can be a factor. One reason for the popularity of single floor designs is that a lot of us are getting older and don’t like stairs any more than necessary. In our old home, we were constantly having to go up and down stairs to do anything. Bad knees and stairs aren’t a good combination.

Thereís a line on the tax form about contributing a dollar to political campaigns. Add one about contributing a dollar to energy research and then redistribute the cash to research companies.

If we get viable fusion next year, it will still take decades to get off of oil. The oil industry has been built up over the course of a century, it cannot be replaced quickly. And transportation uses (gasoline, diesel) will be the hardest to replace, and that’s a bit more than half the refined oil output.

There is no magic bullet. Deal with it.