Hmmm .... My 2 cents.

My thinking goes likes this.

I like my modern technological life. I like my computers, cars, lights,
HBO and modern medical techniques. I refuse to live in a cave. Street
maybe, if I keep spending the way I am

Solar and wind energy together is too expensive for the small amount of
electricity one receives. In order to get large amounts of energy one
has to destroy something to get it: be it coal, nuclear, Fusion is just
a dream a false hope, wood or any other agricultural source. If one (ok
the world) uses agricultural sources, bread will be twenty dollars a
loaf, greater starvation among the populated world.

Coal, CO2 scrubbers still leaves toxic waste in our land fills.
Hydrogen, needs electricity to extract from water. Bio-mass -
Agicultural, kiss all forest good-by, not just the rain forest.

If .... If and only if they can make them safe and put its waste in
outer space, are the breeder nuclear reactors. "The old saying - Is
anything safe? NO".

The only way to have a clean, healthy earth for everyone on this planet,
IS POPULATION REDUCTION. ie: make bombs not babies (ok, ok, forget the
reverse pun of the sixty's vietnam) just stop breeding like humans.

However, not sure of the future. My next truck will have an E85 engine.
I have read some where that all one has to do is combine 85 gallons of
ethanal with 15 gallons of regular gas. Buy a still, I have the 10 acres
of land to raise corn and have 6 acres of woods (energy source for the
still).

Its all about me, let the world starve. Conservation is a lost cause
without population reduction. I am single with no kids. With no social
life one has the time to do the things listed above.

So I agree with the original poster:
Home Gardening "is" Becoming Even More Imperative.

Enjoy Life ......... Dan.

In article
,
Billy Rose wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

electrical plugs just put off the problem. somebody somewhere gotta
burn something to make the electricity.

True, but then you can use bio-mass and your not burning fossil fuel.
Additionally, you have the option of scrubbing the smoke stack to
sequester the CO2 and reduce the over all amount in the atmosphere.

if they are making hydrogen from water, fine, if it is nuclear less than
ideal.

About as far as you can get from ideal, IMHO. In 30 - 40 years, fusion
reactors should be viable with lots of safe, clean energy. Why mess up
the planet for a 40 year fix, when it creates more problems than it
solves?

platinum is typically used to catalyze the splitting of water, used
with an electrical current in an ionic but not necessarily acidic
environment.

The April '07 issue of Scientific American addresses the issue of
hydrogen storage. The choices are (1) compressed hyrdogen, (2) liquid
hydrogen (Ever see the demonstration where they dip a rose into liquid
helium? Same kinda deal) (3) reversible "hydrogen metal hydrides" (they
generate H+ in response to heat and a catalyst and, they need to be
removed to recharge) and (4) "hydrogen adsorbents" that work like
sponges (don't need to be removed to recharge but research just
beginning).

Unfortunately, the full article isn't available on line without a
subscription but you could find it at the library and, the graphics are
very helpful in helping understand the problems involved.

Ingrid

On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:35:35 -0700, Billy Rose

- Billy
Coloribus gustibus non disputatum (mostly)
wrote:
Even more practical would be the electric plug in vehicle.


--
Email "dan lehr at comcast dot net". Text only or goes to trash automatically.