The New York Times reports: At Milepost 1 on the Hydrogen Highway. Here's what we learned after reading this article:
1. You must wear a suit to refill a hydrogen tank
2. There's no hydrogen around for us to use (currently)
3. We, as a people, have learned nothing.
Oh, everyone is talking hydrogen: We must have hydrogen. Gotta have hydrogen. But where is the hydrogen? We don't see any hydrogen! It's time for low finance man to the rescue!
President Bush has been talking up hydrogen for four years; the Energy Department has set a goal for hydrogen to provide 10 percent of the nation’s energy needs by 2030; and Samuel W. Bodman, the secretary of energy, recently doled out research grants worth $8.2 million aimed at expanding hydrogen storage capacity.
Ah, 8.2 million clams. BFD. Are you telling us that something as important as getting off of oil and being a cleaner nation is only worth $8.2 million?
Didn't we lose a crapload more of that? Don't the tissues from Halliburton cost more than $8.2 million? Yes, we understand that the weak-ass amount of moolah is slated only for hydrogen storage, but based on what this country does with money (lose it, pay big kids to play games) it seems insane that we'd not spend more on research.
Anyway, one of the ways hydrogen is made ends up producing a lot of carbon dioxide. Which is bad. So, should we forget that process and focus our energy (ha!) on a new, cleaner method of making hydrogen? No!:
One possible way to offset that undesirable addition to the atmosphere is sequestration, collecting the carbon dioxide and storing it in the ocean or the ground. This plan shows some promise, but not on the scale required to support a hydrogen-powered future.
Oh that's a fucking great idea! Nothing you bury ever, ever comes back to haunt you. Hello? Michael Jackson video? He comes back to do the touchin' and the gropin' and does the movin' to the Middle Eastin'. For the record, burying the CO2 is a bad idea. Also for the record,
Alison.
How about other ways to make power?
The Energy Department estimates that meeting the country’s needs would require more than 160,000 two-megawatt wind turbines. Advanced nuclear energy may be a more attractive option.
What? Who the fuck got to answer this survey?
Were the question like this? What would you prefer:
1. A wonderful life, without any possible consequences thanks to nuclear energy
2. Instant death from wind power
The answer is obvious.
In related(ish) news, a Ford executive gives her thoughts on the future of the automobile engine: Ford exec foresees smaller engines.
CNN reports: Greenest cars. CNN done listed the cars that the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy says are the greenest. Here's the list:
