Hydrogen

[Hero999]

The problem is that converting electrical energy into hydrogen then to useful energy is far more inefficient than converting electricity to useful energy.

The more steps you put into the chain the more inefficient it becomes, electricity is already a secondary energy source, therefore hydroden would be a tertiary energy source.

The electricity transmission system is very efficient and converting the electricity to hydrogen, transmitting it then converting it useful energy would be a lot more wasteful. It's common sense if you ask me.

Back to oxygen consumption, when you think that people can survive quite high up on the mountains when the oxygen concentration is nearly half of what it is at sea level I'm not too worried about it being depleated. Also increasing the amount og CO2 will also increase photosynthesis so I'm not going to panic.

 

[Thunderchild]

why will increasing CO2 increase photosynthesis ? do twice or three times the amount of trees suddenly spring up ?

well if carring the electreicity is easier then fine do it that way, all I am trying to point out is that a hot place like africa will maximise power production and it has more exposure and not a lot of clouds around to block the sun of course just wait another 30 years and you will start to get the same conditions over your houses so the problem will be solved

 

[Thunderchild]

from the little I read in that PDF (I will read the rest) the power is actually carried as DC thats a very good idea as it eliminates the skin effect of AC that would require larger cables I suppose the only issue with everything being DC is the stepping transformers and large power motors that need AC to run (brush less motors)

 

[Hero999]

why will increasing CO2 increase photosynthesis ? do twice or three times the amount of trees suddenly spring up ?

Another myth is that photosynthesis mainly occurs in trees and other terrestrial plants

The truth is that most of the photosynthesis occurs in algae and other aquatic plants that live in the world's oceans, remember most of the world's surface is covered by the sea.

well if carring the electreicity is easier then fine do it that way, all I am trying to point out is that a hot place like africa will maximise power production and it has more exposure and not a lot of clouds around to block the sun of course just wait another 30 years and you will start to get the same conditions over your houses so the problem will be solved

What you are forgetting is that an increase in global temperature will actually reduce the amount of sunshine and increase rainfall on the planet. Increasing the temperature would mean more water will evaporate from the sea so more would condense in the upper atmosphere forming rain and snow. Although some areas would receive less rainfall far many others will receive more so agriculture might be possible in areas which are currently deserts.

If it's more cloudy then how is that going to make solar power more efficient?

I don't believe all the doom and gloom stories and I'm not saying that the effects climate change would be overall positive but an increase in temperature would boost argiculture on a global scale. I agree there would be winner and loosers, an increase in sea level would reduce the amount of land available slightly but there would be huge areas that would become arable that are now too cold or dry.

from the little I read in that PDF (I will read the rest) the power is actually carried as DC thats a very good idea as it eliminates the skin effect of AC that would require larger cables I suppose the only issue with everything being DC is the stepping transformers and large power motors that need AC to run (brush less motors)

I haven't read the article but from what I know in general DC power is only used in bulk power distribution and on some train and tram networks, it's normally converted to AC by an inverter before being distributed to the end user.

 

[firewater]

Hydrogen ignition

One thing is creating H2, Other thing is carrying it. The damn bastards leaks very well. also, what happens when two cars think, they should crash... gasoline + one spark = nothing. Gasoline needs flame to start burning (vapors is another matter here, I'm not talking about that). But H2! light a match 100m away and WOOSH! half of the town is clean. Haven't you done experiments in your chemistry class

That is not correct, since Hydrogen is lighter than air it dissipates very quickly and is actually much less dangerous than gasoline and when leaked it does not contaminate the ground and go on to get into the water supply where it can destroy fish and other wildlife.
**broken link removed**
Also I read a book in Borders books about pipe lines in Germany I think it was that were designed to carry natural gas that have been carrying Hydrogen for years.I'll get the name of the book and post it.

 

[philba]

also, burning gasoline (or any other liquid flamable) will cling to what ever it comes in contact with. It stays on the ground and burns upward. Hydrogen rises as it burns so while it will still cause burns in people, the burns are generally less severe that gasoline burns. Also, the products of hydrogen combustion are less toxic than gasoline/jp4/... since it doesn't cling to other materials and thus causes less secondary combustion. I recall reading that the number 1 cause of death in survivable air crashes was smoke inhalation and not the actual fire.