October 11, 2009
Britain's Central Planning Death Panels
October 11, 2009
Free Market M.D.
October 11, 2009
Economies of Scale in Compliance
October 11, 2009
Balan's Challenge
October 10, 2009
The Pleasure of Telling Others What to Do
October 10, 2009
Gonick the Great - and How He Could Have Been Greater
October 9, 2009
More Scott Sumner
October 9, 2009
Not From The Onion
October 9, 2009
Thoughts on a Second Stimulus
“Jeremy Rifkin numbers among current hydrogen zealots--while skipping over the small matter of where we get the hydrogen.”
Shucks, I guess I’m just a cynical dude. It seems to me that those who are most infatuated with the idea of hydrogen power could care less whether it makes any sense. On a gut level, they merely conclude: “Water isn’t yucky like that nasty oil. It’s clean and pure. Therefore, it’s got to be a good thing.” Why let a few facts get in the way of one’s utopian schemes?
How will hydrogen power really help us? If it has to come from natural gas, coal, oil, or atomic energy, how will it really help? I understand that it is not polluting, but won't the processes needed to obtain it be polluting and also, except for atomic, use up non-renewable energy sources? However, doesn't using atomic power use up non-renewable energy?
Only solar or wind seem to be useful and practical sources of non-renewable and non-polluting of energy. Of course, hydroelectric is there, but haven't most of the useful places been utilized. It does take material and energy to build a dam and a power plant, doesn't it?