In article , Dick Carroll
writes:

Strictly speaking, there is no pollution-free method of obtaining
significant amounts of power.

Actually there is, it's just that they have no serious following in the
circles
where it might matter enough to move things along at a rate which would
actually make them viable, available options. Some of them are

Wind
Tidal action
Hydrogen
Solar

Geothermal
Biomass

What is mostly needed is the emphasis toward development of the alternates.

It would be interesting to know how many trillions of dollars have been poured
into nuclear power research since the end of WW2, and compare that to what has
been spent on renewables.

While the isntalled base is fossil fuel, at affordable prices, and the
pollution
doesn't overwhelm us, not that much is lilely to change. It isn't for lack of
possibilities. You could easily generate all your own power now, it's just
much
cheaper to buy it from a utility which probably burns coal to generate it.
You
can get engines which will run on used vegetable oil or almost any other type
of
fat. But few of us will as long as the corner gas station is handy and not
outta sight pricewise.

There's also efficiency considerations. More efficient lighting methods and
insulation can make big differences. The effect of requiring an efficiency
rating of 12 on new air conditioners instead of 10 is enormous at the power
plant.

Looks to me like development of hydrogen is the way to go. It's THE most
plentiful fuel on the planet, is absolutely non-polluting since combusting it
recombines it with oxygen to form water, from which some of the hydrogen can
again be extracted.

But where do we get the hydrogen to begin with? It does not occur by itself
naturally on earth in significant quantities.

To extract hydrogen from water requires electrolysis, which requires
electricity. The energy available from the extracted hydrogen is no greater
than the electrical energy required to extract it.

Extraction from methane (natural gas) leaves you with a lot of carbon to
dispose of. And you might as well burn the methane.

And most current vehicles can operate on it with little
modification needed beyond storage. The issue of volatility is actually
pretty
much a non-issue, considering the volitility of gasoline.

Gasoline evaporates but hydrogen would have to be stored under significant
pressure.

Again, it's the
insalled base of fossil fuels that would have to be reworked. That's a lot of
service stations to alter. And a lot of politics to rework. Not gonna happen
anytime soon. No, I haven't forgotten the Hindenburg. Different era,
different technology.

Recent tests have shown that what caused the Hindenburg disaster was that the
fabric covering was extremely flammable. Analysis of fabric scraps and the
famous film has shown that the skin caught fire first, and ignited the gas
inside.

Hydrogen isn't an energy source. It's really just a storage method.

There are considerable wind generation facilities in Western areas, though,
and
I recall driving past a huge solar collector field out there somewhere. .I
think
it was in southwestern Arizona where the sun shines daily.

And there have been conceptual plans for large tidal action generators for a
long time, without any hard plans to move on them AFAIK.

Enormous initial cost is why.

73 de Jim, N2EY