A_Wanderer said:
A few points ~ firstly why would you be running desalinised (presumably) seawater for your hydrogen source, it seems like a significant waste of energy when there are plenty of sources of fresh water that could be used.
Well, yes and no. Yes, we have lots of fresh water, but we also have lots of dry periods and using all our drinking water to produce fuel at our rates of consumption may lead to drinking water shortages.
But we do have oceans.
Secondly what technology would you be using for these desalination plants? The reason that I ask is because if a government funded a massive project like this with technology that it expensive and inneficient would the public be willing to go along and in the long term would it be desirable to keep them operating.
Anything in small quantities will be expensive. Period. Would it be so expensive anymore if the technology was given serious consideration? If we put as much attention into desalination as we did creating HDTVs over the past decade, maybe the technology would be cheaper.
Would these power plants be privately or publicly owned? Would the electrolysis plants be public or private? What would make this a more desirable option than fossil fuels. Is there any guarantee that the price of fossil fuels will remain high > if they dropped be it through a breakthrough in abiotic synthesis of fuel what would prevent the public from going back to the cheaper option.
Power plants are already privately owned, as far as I know. The prices, however, are state regulated. We invest hundreds of billions of dollars into the military each year without an afterthought. We try and invest even a fraction of that into the domestic infrastructure, and people whine.
Fossil fuels will remain high, as far as I'm concerned, and China and the rest of the developing world hasn't even hit its peak yet.
What about consumerism? sure it is great that there is a cheaper energy supply but all those cars will still be made with plastics, so will many things around the home or at work you may have greater consumption globally as a result of initiating a cheaper and cleaner energy source.
I don't expect America to reduce its consumption level, which is why I swung towards zero-emission technologies. If we're going to consume, the least we can do is have a clean energy technology, coupled with recycling of materials.
As for "plastic," nothing says that we can't use different building materials that don't involve petroleum products. We'll just have to work at it.
Nuclear fission power plants are a good medium term solution, but could you sell them to the public. People have been exposed to the nuclear nightmare scenarios for decades in spite of the facts, most of the mainstream green groups remain vehemently opposed to nuclear power even though it is a cleaner source of energy. When things change and groups capitalise on ignorance and technophobia it can establish political obstacles for such an endevour.
I'm bored with all the fearmongering. It's downright retarded, and both the left and the right are guilty. People have kept their exposure to the nightmare scenarios, because of the fact that people aren't aware of the facts. They aren't aware of technological changes. They aren't aware of the waste disposal options or even the uranium recycling options. There are obstacles, yes, but obstacles that I believe can be overcome with persistence.
As for the Left, just bring up France and they'll be placated. The nation is pretty much exclusively run by nuclear power.
Personally I think that we should be looking furthur afield, to go for the next generation of energy sources rather than rolling out a LOT more of what we already have. Fusion would be a possible candidate, sono-fusion ~ if it could be proven and applied to energy production would be very neat indeed.
Fusion would be great, except, as far as I know, it's a crap shoot. In fact, there seem to be a lot of scientists who think its impossible. We don't have the luxury of decades to wait for those scientists to be proven wrong.
What will be the ramifications of cheap fuel, the west may enjoy having a hydrogen economy and paying more for it but that will not fly in developing countries, cheaper fuel will only mean that they will use more of it and even more environmental damage could be done. Then there are the geopolitical ramifications, not just the Middle East but all over the world there are countries that are dependent on oil revenues, Russia could be hit very hard and just cease to exist as a single nation, Central Asia could also suffer. The blowback from these changes could be disasterous for the world. I am not saying that nothing should change in the name of stability, I am saying that any ambitious plans must be fully drafted with contingencies and room to be changed and adapted as the situation changes. The problem with unforseen circumstances is that too often the plans are not capable of meeting and dealing with this.
These nations have been whining about American cultural imperialism for decades and resent us anyway. On one hand, they want us to go away. On the other, they want our money. Well, I'm willing to grant them their former wish once and for all. I'm not interested in hampering our development just to be a source of welfare for them.
Once it is perfected here, the technology can be exported to Europe and beyond.
What about all the petroleum exploration and those employed in that industry ~ think of the geologists!
Should we have banned the telephone to preserve the telegraph industry?
The adoption of a new fuel and restructuring of energy supply in the world largest markets are no small feat, the changes would be drastic and would need a lot of time. There is little possibility that any single government could enact sweeping changes without suffering at the ballot box (for example making all news cars hybrid or subsidising hybrid cars with tax dollars). The change must be allowed to happen on it's own without drastic government intervention, when it becomes more profitable to use hybrid vehicles and the demand develops the companies will follow. Once you get more money running to hydrogen producers then that industry can roll out some. These things cannot be rushed through, they can be assisted but never forced.
It won't happen on its own. That's the thing. The oil industry is loving this right now. Why would they even consider investigating alternative fuels, when they're making record profits? And the auto industry, for some odd reason, seems to be in bed with the oil industry, so they'll never betray them.
It'll happen once the oil runs out, but by then, are we willing to flounder for years, if not decades, waiting for the technology to catch up? Supply-side economics isn't coming to our rescue this time. It's too short-sighted of an economic system, and--let's face it--we haven't had real R&D in the U.S. since the 1970s. Even the internet is riding off the coattails of 1960s/70s R&D. That's probably why the space shuttle program is about to collapse, and we have no successor.
Our pursuit of the all-mighty quarterly profit will be our ruin. In the meantime, I hope you all enjoy your expensive fuel for the next decade or more, thanks to our short-sighted economic system.
Melon
And always the best non flat bladder buster sodas! 
)
We have zoning laws for a reason. Period.
