Add your comments
Please keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments.
When you enter your name and email address, you'll be sent a link to confirm your comment, and a password. To leave another comment, just use that password.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br> tags.
Please note that gratuitous links to your site are viewed as spam and may result in removed comments.













Reader Comments for
Subscribe to this threadNanotech research stumbles on homemade hydrogen
(Page 1 of 1)
Gary Blomquist @ Mar 3rd 2008 11:58AM
Sadly, it's still a "zero sum gain" or "negative sum gain".
Can't these folks get it through there thick skulls that hydrogen isn't going to be cheap, unless the U.S. starts building nuke power plants ASAP, like France and China, so we can have a surplus of "grid power", and can use the surplus electicity to crack hydrogen from water, and stockpile hydrogen like the French are doing.
Also we will be not spewing as much foul radioactive elements into the atmosphere via our 500+ coal burning power plants.
Yes, coal burning, at it's cleanest, actually creates and spews radioactive elements into the atmosphere in great quantities.
Nuke power is the safest, cleanest form of electric power. Even the Japanese who know the bad side of nuclear energy are less afraid and less constrained by hysterical greenies from the Sierra Club and their monstrous anti-nuke lobbies in Washington D.C..
France is freeing themselves from OPEC blackmail, by mass building Nuke power plants. At present, they have surplus power for their grid and are selling and using their surplus to break hydrogen from water for future automotice/industrial clean fuel burning.
We are spending so much research moneys on these extreme, and involved technologies, when right in front of our faces like a bright neon sign is clean, safe, nuclear energy.
Also remember that those old used fuel rods can be re-processed and new fuel rods will result from that. The amount of fuel left over is so minute and has a dangerous radioactive life of less than 100 years.
Spent fuel rods are not a danger. They still can be used via reprocessing.
Instead we are playing around with nano-tech to make better batteries. This is good research, but we have hydrogen available in infinite quantities if we would only get over the nuclear fear phobia that has been brainwashed into our boomer and later generations because of Green peace, and the Sierra Club and their propaganda that would drive us back to the Stone Age.
john riley @ Mar 3rd 2008 1:07PM
Seems to me like I read that there isn't enough uranium to support a large scale, long term, shift to nuclear.
john riley @ Mar 3rd 2008 1:12PM
Here is a link on the uranium issue:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/industrials/article555314.ece