Re:What is the process's efficiency (Score 1)

I wonder about the efficiency of H2 production every time some political yahoo, or tree-hunging greenie starts ranting about fuel cells. Breaking hydrogen out of its current chemical compounds; hydrocarbons, water, etc will require a substantial amount of energy. Then the hydrogen has to be stored, and it is notorious for being one of the most difficult to store compounds in existence. Then you have safety issues because H2 is also highly flammable. One poster pointed out that H2 will dissipate while gasoline forms a puddle, but its greater propensity to explode in the first place probably counteracts that benefit. Then you have the issues with H2O exhaust. Yes, it is water vapor we are talking about, but when 100 million americans drive to work everyday, that is a lot of water vapor, the potential for ecosystem impact is very real.

H2 may be a feasible way to store energy but it is only one of dozens, from a broad array of chemical batteries to flywheels. However much hydrogen may be superior to other forms of battery, its use will never supplant our need to to actually GENERATE the electricity that is needed to charge all those batteries in the first place. Hydrocarbon fuels like methane and coal are falling from favor because of their harmful byproducts but legitimate efforts to reduce harmful emissions are having a substantial impact. Recent technological developments can reduce most harmful emmissions from coal by 90% and more. Plus growing concerns about the limit of supply may very well be proved pointless by the recent development of thermal depolymerisation technology (TDP) which permits the energy efficient conversion of carbonn based waste into fuel and other useful byproducts with no harmful outputs.

Windpower is an enviromental catastrophe second only to a damn break, the wind farms in california are inefficient, expensive, deafeningly noisy and mercilessly slaughter large numbers of wildlife, including several bald eagles, each year.

Solar power is also expensive, and unreliable, though it is useful enough that it will always play some part in meeting our generating needs it can only account for a small percentage of those needs.

We have pretty much built all the hydroelectric capacity we can, besides building dams also results in a substantial environmental impact, from flooded upstream areas that become reservoirs and variations in flow, to meet generating demand, damaging downstream wildlife.

A well run and designed nuclear plant like Plant Vogtle in Augusta, Georgia can produce power at about 1.4-1.7 cents a kw-hour, that is cheaper than coal, and almost as cheap as hydro. The radioactive waste that results from maintaining nuclear facilities can be safely and indefinitely managed, despite what some might have you believe. Especially if the Yucca Mountain repository comes online. An interesting side note: US nuclear plants have burned up over 6000 Russian Warheads, how's that for "Swords to Plowshares"?

Plus all of that only considers the current generation of plants in existence. Plants that were built in the 1970's. With the great leaps in commerical nuclear technology that have been made by US companies building plants in foreign countries, like Korea, Japan, and France, the next generation of plants that will, hopefully, be built in the coming decade, will be safer, cheaper, and more reliable. 30 years ago the accident at Three Mile Island brought us to the realization that commercial nuclear generation posed a serious danger. In the 30 years since then the nuclear power industry has proved it is capable and willing to work to eliminate the imediacy of that danger. While it once acted that way in response to federal regulation, it has learned that nuclear safety is a significant boon to their bottom line, since TMI most nuclear plants have gone from around 60% of operational capacity to over 90%. If people are willing to face their fears and cut through the spin, I believe they will find, as I have, that nuclear power can and should be a major part of our nation's energy policy. Lastly, I do not believe these things because I work for a nuclear power company. I work for a nuclear power company because I believe these things.

PS. Hey Bush, it is pronounced nuke-lee-ar NOT nu-cue-ler